Regie:
Martin ScorseseDrehbuch:
John LoganKamera:
Robert RichardsonMusik:
Howard ShoreBesetzung:
Ben Kingsley, Sacha Baron Cohen, Asa Butterfield, Chloë Grace Moretz, Ray Winstone, Emily Mortimer, Christopher Lee, Helen McCrory, Michael Stuhlbarg (mehr)Streaming (5)
Inhalte(1)
Paris zu Beginn der 30er Jahre: Der 12-jährige Hugo zieht unermüdlich in einem Pariser Bahnhof die Uhren auf und hält die Mechanik am Laufen. Eigentlich ist sein Onkel, ein Alkoholiker, dafür zuständig, aber der ist plötzlich verschwunden. Hugo lebt versteckt im Inneren der Uhren-Technik, zwischen Pendeln und Pleuelstangen. Er darf sich nur nicht vom Bahnhofsvorsteher mit seinem wachsamen Dobermann erwischen lassen, denn der würde ihn sofort in ein Waisenhaus stecken. Weil Kinder ohne Eltern dahin gehören ... (Paramount Pictures Germany)
(mehr)Videos (16)
Kritiken (11)
Paradox: Die simpelste Filmillusion überhaupt, die auf technisch komplexeste Weise erstellt wurde. Eine Rückkehr zum anfänglichen Erstaunen. Meiner Ansicht nach liegt dies am nächsten nicht zu The Artist, sondern zu Herzogs Die Höhle der vergessenen Träume. Sogar Scorsese bemüht sich, zum magischen Moment des Ausreißens aus der Welt der Geister zurückzukehren, und zwar in eine Dimension, in der sich das Bild auf der Netzhaut in eine komplexe Welt dahinter verwandelt. Ich habe zwei Stunden im Kino der Glückseligkeit sowie der Ekstase von etwas verbracht, das es nicht gab und das auch nicht da ist. Hugo Cabrets Wert liegt nicht in seinen (sachlich anzuzweifelnden) enzyklopädischen Belehrungen, sondern in der Tatsache, dass er uns beibringt, uns über die Vorstellungskraft zu freuen - nicht über eine anregende visuelle Expansion, die ihre totale Verkümmerung hervorruft, sondern über die Reise ins Innere, in der immer die schönsten Zauber passiert sind, angeregt durch die Magie der Meister von Stift- und Zelluloid. Hoffentlich wird es mir einmal gelingen mein Kind so zu erziehen, damit der anachronistische Illusionist Hugo Cabret fürs Kind unterhaltsam ist, selbst mit seiner peinlich romantischen (und beruhigenden) Vision der Welt als einem Mechanismus, in dem alles einen festen Platz inne hat ...
()
Aus einer originellen Vorlage ist ein einfallsloser Film geworden, in dem jede hinzugefügte Sache überflüssig ist. Ich hatte den Eindruck, dass viele Szenen nur für die gelobte 3D-Version entstanden sind (vor allem der völlig überflüssige Zugunfall). Die Geschichte ist irgendwie langwierig, sie wurde zu sehr verlängert, Sacha Baron Cohen macht sich zum Kasper… Die Regie ist geschickt und man spürt die Liebe zu Filmen. In Hugo Cabret habe ich aber nichts Besonderes gesehen. Das ist sehr schade. Meistens neige ich nicht dazu, aber diesmal habe ich wirklich Lust zu schreien: Lesen Sie das Buch, es ist viel besser!
()
More than just a tribute to the forefather of cinematic brats (weaned and further nourished on the sci-fi, fantasy and horror genres). The web of references to films and filmmakers who were influenced by Meliés and who possibly influenced Scorsese (who came to Meliés through his own spiritual father, Michael Powell) has multiple layers and one viewing is not nearly enough to disentangle them, while the revealing of the central idea, which is underpinned by numerous allusions, is no less entertaining. Film as a mechanical means of reviving memories, bringing people together and creating dreams. Here, only cinematic dreams, not real ones, which have the form of nightmares, serve as a reliable means of escape from reality (we therefore also mainly see examples from Meliés’s special-effects films and less from his reconstructed events). (In the second bad dream, there is a peculiar absence of clocks, i.e. time as a dimension, which mechanical inventions other than film lack). ___ The story isn’t divided into two parts; from the beginning, it’s about repairing a broken machine, with the first part accenting the mechanical level and the second part placing emphasis on the human level. We mainly see the machines first. They are placed in the foreground of the mis-en-scéne and, at the same time, Hugo pins all of his hopes on them. The first part also comes closer to grotesque films, as a human functions as an inanimate, mechanical object. The second part, from the activation of the automaton, is a partial negation of the modernistic enthusiasm over technological progress. Hugo starts to realise that the machines will not change anything about his loneliness. The guard’s mechanical leg, previously used as a source of gags, becomes a means of becoming close to the flower girl, who lost her brother at Verdun (mass slaughter thanks to the use of modern technology). The settings of the action are expanded with the addition of Meliés’s household and library. Books and people get more space. Technology is talked (theorised) about more than it is shown. ___ The mechanical thesis and the human antithesis logically lead to cinematic synthesis, to the joining of reason and emotion as, for example, Jean Epstein wrote about it (La Lyrosophie). The conclusion brings separate “peephole” scenes (gags) like those from early films into the overall narrative. Like the characters, these scenes find their place, their meaning. The film is constructed in such a way that it can result in a film. I cannot imagine a more wonderful tribute to the very idea of moving pictures. ___ The historical inaccuracies that Scorsese allows are easier to criticise than the outwardly atypical plot structure. Viewers’ dodging of the oncoming train can still be tolerated when reading the book by Tabard, who, as it happens, was not accurate in writing about Meliés, but not in Meliés’s own memoirs, which corrected other authorial errors. Meliés did not come across cinema by accident, as he was personally invited to a public film screening by the Lumière brothers and he did not create the camera from nothing, but improved an existing model by R.W. Paul. The decline in interest in his work did not come until the First World War. By about 1909, Meliés’s laborious method had made it simply impossible for him to shoot as quickly as the times demanded and he completed his final film in 1913. However, these details are overshadowed by his incredibly precise revival of old Paris and even older films (several seconds of Le Royaume des fées are memorable). The transfer into 3D gave these a new dimension without diminishing their charm. They are improved, though indirectly, by highlighting their meaning. Scorsese not only proclaims his love for film, but also calls on us not to forget. 90%
()
(weniger)
(mehr)
Martin and his big movie. Not his best, but undeniably his most personal. Here Scorsese (Hugo is him) professes his lifelong love of stories in the form of a melancholic kids’ movie which isn’t so much for kids, after all. And in addition to this he was the first to prove that 3D has its rightful place in cinema, where it can be something more than a mere good-looking bolt-on. Mainly and primarily this is a darn good movie; and that is all that is important in the end.
()
2009 – Pandora. 2010 – the cyberspace of TRON Legacy 3D. 2011 – A Parisian train station. Three very different magical worlds and three reasons to pay a few crowns more of a 3D cinema ticket. In addition to the intoxicating visuals, Hugo captivates with its two child protagonists (such likeable kids is not something you see everyday in film – with Chloe is no surprise, but Asu was unknown to me) and its sincere love for cinema. As it’s clear from all the reviews, Hugo is a beautiful celebration of the beginnings of cinematography and it’s very easy to surrender to it. What’s worth noticing is that both Hugo and the silent and black and white The Artists are this year’s biggest Oscar favourites and they’ve received the most nominations. Both deal with a certain period that marked a turning point for cinema. Hugo focuses on the beginning of the century in France, and in particular the work of G. Mèliès, which was setting the trends at the time, and the turning point means WWI, due to which the epicentre of the film world moved to America. The Artist, in contrast, celebrates the American silent movies of the 20th century, and the turning point is sound. Both of them imprint the world into their format, where The Artist is a silent romantic comedy and Hugo is a fairytale that uses special effects to bring the viewer into its (3D) world (and that’s why you must watch it in 3D). Almost like Mèliès A Trip to the Moon, init? :). It’s interesting how it came together this year…
()
Werbung